how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

So by way of rebuttal, you provide a single statement by a guy who is not one of the preemininent experts in his field. Good one.

Can I call it or what?

Rather than read the section I point to, SSDD just waves his hands around, yells a bunch, and does whatever is necessary to excuse not looking at it.

Which would be why it's pointless to go into details with this crowd. They are cultists, and they will actively refuse to look outside their cult for data, even when you directly point them at it.

Wrong again buckwheat, we asked for data. You presented us with a fictional construct. Funny how you science deniers seem to think computer fictions are data

 

[SSDD]

Wrong again buckwheat, we asked for data. You presented us with a fictional construct. Funny how you science deniers seem to think computer fictions are data

Amazing how this crowd simply accepts model output as if it were fact. Makes you wonder if they believe that CG movies like avatar are real also since they mostly come out of a computer.

You would think with the failure rate of models becoming common knowledge they would be embarassed to even mention models, much less present them as primary sources.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;

"It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."

See, science.

Fig. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.

Fig. 2. Sea-surface Temperature.

Fig. 3. Frequency of Hurricanes.

Fig. 4. Extent of Sea Ice.

Evidence for Global Warming

Why do you guys invariably try to inject religion into the issue...I mean, other than your own envirowacko religion.

And as to the evidence for global warming link...the issue isn't whether warming is happening...that happens regularly...the issue is whether there is evidnce that man is the cause. On that issue, there is no proof or anything like it.

I was just doing a search on "documented evidence of climate change effects" and it was the first link I opened that wasn't the NASA or something. So I read it and summarized it.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't think there is a lot to worry about. *According to*Larry Vardiman, Ph.D., while the globe may be warming;

"It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times (II Peter 3:1-12)."

See, science.

Fig. 1. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration.

Fig. 2. Sea-surface Temperature.

Fig. 3. Frequency of Hurricanes.

Fig. 4. Extent of Sea Ice.

Evidence for Global Warming

Why do you guys invariably try to inject religion into the issue...I mean, other than your own envirowacko religion.

And as to the evidence for global warming link...the issue isn't whether warming is happening...that happens regularly...the issue is whether there is evidnce that man is the cause. *On that issue, there is no proof or anything like it.

Those regression lines, the straight ones that are the form y=a+bx, those are what they call "models". *They would be simple models. You can do them in Excel. *As simple models go, they predict a continued increase in the four dependent variables based on the continued increase in the independent variable. *He didn't say what the p-value is, so it's hard to say what the confidence level is. *Being he's a PhD, my guess is that the confidence level is like 95%.

So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.

The next step would be to do scatter plots of the dependent variables against each other and look for correlation. *Obviously, time is not a causal factor, it is just a measure of the progression of periodic changes.

Then, when a good correlation is found, the next question becomes one of determining the direction of causality. *This can be an issue with feedback systems because factors are intercausal.

Still, temp doesn't increase by itself, so something causes it. *CO2 isn't spontaniously created, so it comes from someplace else (comets?). Temp increase causes ice to melt, not ice melting causes temp to increase, that's an easy one. *Hurricane frequency might be caused my melting ice, I suppose, in some chain of causality, seems kind of awkward.*

Of course, CO2 doesn't cause temp to increase. Thermal energy comes from the sun or is released from burning stuff.*

I think the direct causal links are rising CO2 traps heat that drives temp which drives hurricanes and ice melting. *Then we get into the feedback issue of melting ice causing more released CO2 and methane which in turn furthe drives temp.

That's okay, though, because there is the natural negative feedback from*(II Peter 3:1-12).

 

[SSDD]

I was just doing a search on "documented evidence of climate change effects" and it was the first link I opened that wasn't the NASA or something. So I read it and summarized it.

But climate change isn't the real issue. I doubt that you could find anyone who would argue that the climate is changing. It was warming..then the warming stalled...and now there is a growing concern that we may be in for a period of cooling which if true, we all should be worried about...far more than the result of a degree or two of warming.

The issue is whether or not man is causing the global climate to change. It is easy to prove that the climate changes...look at the seasons and see the climate change. It is another matter entirely to try and make the case that there is a human fingerprint on the global climate. To date, there has been no such fingerprint found and the changes we see are well within the bounds of natural variability.

 

[numan]

Turns out that bark beetles are just one more of the seemingly neverending parade of unintended consequences heaped upon us by do good liberalism. Seems that bark beetles are a problem because of fire control. When fire was allowed to be a natural part of the ecology out west, bark beetles were controlled naturally. Do gooders out to save the trees turn out to have been responsible for tens of thousands of them, and more every year, being killed by bark beetles.

How sad that your propaganda fails to explain why it is that fire control existed decades before bark beetles became a major problem -- and why it is that the bark beetle problem escalated with measurable and well-recorded increases in temperature in the regions affected -- and that the spread of the beetles is well documented to be into new areas where the temperature has risen.

Better luck misleading people in the future, SSDD !!

If you had a clue, you would know that it took a while for the trees which the forest service has been planting (which happen to be at the top of the bark beetle menue) to grow.

And how does the fact that the bark beetle problem became intense in areas which had never been re-planted by anyone fit into your Denialist propaganda, SSDD?

This fact is well known in Canada, where vast tracts of forest had not ever been logged, and yet still fell victim to the bark beetle infestations with rising temperatures.
.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm, so far crickets. Come on Saigon, mamooth, Itfitzme, PMZ. . . surely one of you is brave enough to watch that video.

Watched it before. The whole movie. Strangely, you seem to be under the impression we're unfamiliar with denialist propaganda like "The Great Global Warming Swindle". But then, since you refuse to look outside of your cult for information, you naturally assume we must act the same way. Not how it works.

Anyways, the clip's big problem is the cherrypicking. There's essentially a single dissenter from the IPCC position, and the clip solely quotes that guy. It doesn't even mention that contrary evidence exists. Pretty dishonest, but it's how the whole movie works.

But don't take my word for it. Here's what the British government says.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf
---
Professor Paul Reiter’s evidence does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published
---

Now, if you're interested in hearing all sides, you'll read that whole section. If you're not, you'll invoke some conspiracy theory regarding the British government and the IPCC.

So your only rebuttal to the video is a political statement by some of the British House of Lords--I don't believe a scientist in their midst? I have read that whole report as well as the also prepared British document that it was responding to.

So since you provided a link as your only rebuttal to the video, I'll counter with this, three years later:

Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason' - Telegraph

And will ask you again what your take is on the video's concern re the IPCC report.

 

[SSDD]

So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.

Except that the reality of observation is showing us that there is a decrease in hurricane frequency.

Then, when a good correlation is found, the next question becomes one of determining the direction of causality. *This can be an issue with feedback systems because factors are intercausal.

How can anyone in their right mind assume a good corelation when there are fewer and weaker tropical cyclones?

I think the direct causal links are rising CO2 traps heat that drives temp which drives hurricanes and ice melting. *Then we get into the feedback issue of melting ice causing more released CO2 and methane which in turn furthe drives temp.

Except that there are fewer and weaker hurricanes and the ice has melted back some 1000 miles in the past 14,000 years when CO2 levels were "safe". You can't make a good case for corelation unless you completely ignore present observation and history. The only corelation to be found is within the fantasy world of computer models.

 

[itfitzme]

Wrong again buckwheat, we asked for data. You presented us with a fictional construct. Funny how you science deniers seem to think computer fictions are data

Amazing how this crowd simply accepts model output as if it were fact. Makes you wonder if they believe that CG movies like avatar are real also since they mostly come out of a computer.

You would think with the failure rate of models becoming common knowledge they would be embarassed to even mention models, much less present them as primary sources.

The real part is the facial expressions of the actors. They put little dots all over their faces and the computer uses those as baseline data to then model the output on. They also have this awesome photographic machine that takes millions of samples of the actors skin under varing light conditions which serves as the input to the model as well. It is pretty remarkable how accurate and precise those movie models are. It's almost like they were the real thing. See how good models can be?

I wonder if you realize every thought you have is a model. The only question is base you model on real data or just internal feedback.

 

[SSDD]

This fact is well known in Canada, where vast tracts of forest had not ever been logged, and yet still fell victim to the bark beetle infestations with rising temperatures.
.

Yep...haven't been logged which is a problem. Forest management practices designed to limit forest fires have given the beetles an over abundance of mature trees to feed on. Forestry practices geared towards preventing fire have allowed trees to mature beyond their natural life expectancy. Older forests are more attractive to the beetles. By preventing fires, you deny the trees their natural mechanism for procreation as fire is necessary to release the seeds from the pinecones.

In the end, it is human interference in the natural ecology of the forest with all the good intentions in the world that is causing the problem. A fraction of a degree in the past century is not the reason for an invasion of beetles.

But hey, you will beleive what you choose to believe without regard for the facts. The canadian forest service acknowledges that measures taken to prevent fire are the primary cause for the damage the beetles are doing.

 

[itfitzme]

So based on his simple model, there is a 95% probability of continued increase in sea surface temp, hurricane frequency and carbon dioxide, along with a decrease in arctic sea surface extent.

Except that the reality of observation is showing us that there is a decrease in hurricane frequency.

Then, when a good correlation is found, the next question becomes one of determining the direction of causality. *This can be an issue with feedback systems because factors are intercausal.

How can anyone in their right mind assume a good corelation when there are fewer and weaker tropical cyclones?

I think the direct causal links are rising CO2 traps heat that drives temp which drives hurricanes and ice melting. *Then we get into the feedback issue of melting ice causing more released CO2 and methane which in turn furthe drives temp.

Except that there are fewer and weaker hurricanes and the ice has melted back some 1000 miles in the past 14,000 years when CO2 levels were "safe". You can't make a good case for corelation unless you completely ignore present observation and history. The only corelation to be found is within the fantasy world of computer models.

I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.

His reference is
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.

 

[SSDD]

The real part is the facial expressions of the actors. They put little dots all over their faces and the computer uses those as baseline data to then model the output on. They also have this awesome photographic machine that takes millions of samples of the actors skin under varing light conditions which serves as the input to the model as well. It is pretty remarkable how accurate and precise those movie models are. It's almost like they were the real thing. See how good models can be?

Problems arise, however, when you begin to believe the models are reality...or even represent reality...and especially when you begin to ignore reality in favor of what the models say. And when an entire class of models based upon the same physics and energy budget fail, it is time to consider that the physics and energy budget upon which the models are based are simply wrong and it is time to revisit the hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.

His reference is
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

 

[itfitzme]

This fact is well known in Canada, where vast tracts of forest had not ever been logged, and yet still fell victim to the bark beetle infestations with rising temperatures.
.

Yep...haven't been logged which is a problem. Forest management practices designed to limit forest fires have given the beetles an over abundance of mature trees to feed on. Forestry practices geared towards preventing fire have allowed trees to mature beyond their natural life expectancy. Older forests are more attractive to the beetles. By preventing fires, you deny the trees their natural mechanism for procreation as fire is necessary to release the seeds from the pinecones.

In the end, it is human interference in the natural ecology of the forest with all the good intentions in the world that is causing the problem. A fraction of a degree in the past century is not the reason for an invasion of beetles.

But hey, you will beleive what you choose to believe without regard for the facts. The canadian forest service acknowledges that measures taken to prevent fire are the primary cause for the damage the beetles are doing.

Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *

When a tenant complains about cockroaches, I say, "Hey, they keep the kitchen clean." And, if it wasn't for those liberal fireman, the building would have burnt down years ago. *So clearly the cause of cockroaches is those firemen, living of the gov't teet. *

We have to stop interfering with natural processes that limit the natural habitats for cockroaches.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.

His reference is
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

Their computer models are beginning to run into more and more trouble as the 21st century plods along with almost nothing turning out the way their computer models predicted. So they are now trying to find some way to present new models as somehow superior to those old ones that drove so much of the sociopolitical policy that we're already stuck with. Or they say, okay we're in a temporary anomally, but global warming will pick up full steam ahead any day now.

They aren't going to give up all that lovely tax payer funded research money without a fight. And the govrnments that have been able to take away more and more of the people's freedoms and increase their own power and authority aren't likely to question those same models any time soon.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.

His reference is
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

Really, what was the clue? The co2 and temp data?

Or does it negate the Bible?

 

[SSDD]

Yeah, more trees, more damage. * Burn baby burn! *That's my motto. *Smokey the Bear is such an idiot. And those damn liberal firemen, takers. *

Fire is a natural and necessary part of the ecology of those forests. It is so much a part of the ecology that the trees evolved to require fire to release the seeds from the pine cones. When we, with all our good intentions, deny that necessary part of the ecosystem, we cause problems that we can never forsee till they start getting out of hand.

 

[SSDD]

Really, what was the clue? The co2 and temp data?

Or does it negate the Bible?

Only people who are good at humor should attempt it unsupervised.

 

[itfitzme]

I don't know, I was just starting from Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.'s presentation.

His reference is
Best Track data documentation tape from the National Hurricane Center 2006. Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year.

That paper was written in 2006. There hasn't been a major hurricane to hit the US coast since 2005. Clearly his thesis is flawed.

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

 

[SSDD]

How has that whole temperature thing been doing since 2005?

That would depend on which altered surface temperature record you look at. Which one is your favorite?